Notes on Our Last Issue Welcome to what will become perhaps the most-read edition of The L-Word ever. I am very proud of this issue and I hope that you will read all of it. But, before you do, please let me address some issues related to our last issue. As almost on anyone on campus knows, it was very controversial. I would like to respond to criticisms of our last issue here so that people can understand our point of view. Before I do, however, I would like to point out that Owen and myself received over 100 positive responses to our issue, a number far greater than the negative responses voiced to us. Still, addressing these concerns, which may or may not be held by other students, is instructive if only to clarify specific issues and discuss what The L-Word is. First of all, people thought our last issue was too strong. To them, it blew the whole thing out of proportion. We disagree. Three authors, including myself, submitted articles on perhaps the biggest student controversy at Swarthmore in the last two years. We believe that it deserved strong and detailed coverage, and that is what our last issue provided. Public figures are subject to public criticism, regardless of the size of this campus, and the press has a responsibility to hold those public figures accountable. That is why we printed what we did. We hold no ill will toward any of those involved personally.And for publications to provide critical coverage of public figures is nothing new; in fact, The Economist, perhaps the world's most respected newsmagazine, recently ran a cover stating "If It's True, Go" in response to allegations about President Clinton raised in the Paula Jones civil suit. Still, some go farther and have called it an "attack," implying some sort of concerted L-Word action to seek Laura's impeachment. This includes Acting Dean Bob Gross, who, during the meeting some call the "Sunday Night Massacre", characterized all those in favor of impeachment as attackers at the height of the controversy. That was not the intent. Moreover, I personally take offense at Gross's unfair characterization of the issue, especially considering that the meeting in question was ostensibly called to promote healing. Certainly, the individual articles were very strong, but that was the extent of it. The L-Word did not set out to attack anyone. In fact, I recused myself from the decision to print the articles because of my prior involvement in the issue and turned that authority over to Owen. He felt that the articles deserved to be printed and, additionally, that the authors were on the right side of this controversy. That is the partisan coverage that is our function. As stated in our last issue, we felt that freedom of the press and accountability in government were threatened. Those are fundamental liberal issues that we take very seriously. We hope that everyone understands that we set out to deal with just those issues. As a liberal newspaper, we do not provide unbiased news coverage. That is for The Swarthmore Phoenix and the Daily Gazette. Several people expressed to me the wish that there could have been an unbiased account of the issue. We agree. However, The Phoenix did not cover the issue due to the involvement of the editors and the Gazette published a story attempting to summarize the coverage that was factually incorrect and contained several misrepresentations, including some pertaining to The L-Word (requiring a clarification the next day). Similarly, we are under no obligation to provide "balanced" coverage or give the other side a chance to respond. As a partisan publication, our job is to promote our viewpoint. Just as The American Spectator doesn't give President Clinton a chance to respond in the same issue in which he is criticized, we are under no obligation to promote the viewpoint of others. Explicitly partisan publications operate under a different set of rules than newspapers. Similarly, we answer those who say that it was not "fair" that those dealt with in the articles did not get a chance to respond in print at that time by saying that that is how a free press works. It is not fair -- that is the price of freedom. However, those involved do have a chance to respond in a letter to the editor if they wish. Our issue did contain factual errors, which we have corrected below. We apologize that these were printed. All were thought to be true by the editors and others as we went to print. In fact, most of the errors had been asserted at the initial Student Council meeting and went uncorrected at the time. They were only brought to our attention after the issue had been published. We have corrected everything that we know to be false. Others felt that our issue did not have enough variety. For that, we apologize as well. We solicited articles from numerous campus liberals for over five weeks prior to publication. As we went to print, we only had two articles that did not relate to the SC controversy. We want The L-Word to address a variety of liberal issues in each press run. In this issue, our coverage is more diverse. But we make no apologies for printing the articles that we did. We just wish we had more articles to go along with them. The most serious issue, which we believe we have answered, related to the possible existence of a perception of anti-Semitism in The L-Word itself (although this was never expressed publicly). This is something we take very seriously and, as such, I pulled the last issue for roughly 90 minutes when I found out that a possible perception of anti-Semitism might exist. After speaking with a facilitator from Ruach, I returned the issue to Parrish. Later that day, Owen and I drafted an email to Student Council clarifying my actions and the details of the situation. In short, we stated that roughly 15 people saw Wilson Kello's cartoon in the last issue before publication and no one knew of its similarity to an anti-Semitic cartoon from Nazi Germany. We apologize if this resemblance offended anyone. As The Phoenix has tried to explain many times, the cartoon expresses Kello's views alone but the editors (in this case, just Owen) take responsibility for printing it. It was a satire of manipulation using a common puppetteer metaphor. Second, none of us knew that the word "cabalistic," used in Kello's article, has been used by anti-Semites. We abhor anti-Semitism and would like to clear this issue up once and for all. Students Have Responsibility to Maintain Press This is my last issue as Editor-in-Chief of The L-Word. I feel that I have done my job in building this newspaper into a forum for liberal opinions on campus and national issues. A balance of the two will serve this campus best in the future. As liberals, it is all too easy to debate philosophical questions and national issues while ignoring the tough issues right in front of us. I hope that, from now on, we will deal with both, for they are equally important.
Our first three issues, edited by myself and Ben Fritz, focused primarily on liberal ideology and national issues. These were very successful and I am proud of my work on them. However, I felt that we needed to cut down on our recycling ratio and be more relevant to the campus as a whole. As such, Owen and I have shifted The L-Word to focus on campus issues this semester. We hope that this will continue to bring a needed critical perspective to campus affairs from a liberal point of view.
This sort of independent criticism is something that is rare on our small and insular campus. There aren't many people who are willing to offer public criticism and take the heat that will inevitably come as a result of it. As someone who plans to spend the rest of his life in politics, this certainly isn't the easiest route, but I stand by my actions.
The L-Word is pretty much the third most visible publication on this campus, besides The Phoenix and Spike, and at this point the most independent. Because of the constraints placed on it, The Phoenix has never been able to really serve this function while Spike has often tackled controversial topics, but only at the end of the semester (and it remains to be seen whether the current editors will continue Ian Chang's vigilance in this regard).
We believe that our campus benefits by having a tough press. But we can't maintain one if no one is willing to work on it. All the publications on this campus, with the exception of now-trendy Spike, have major problems finding dedicated staff. It handicaps the ability of the student press to function. The Phoenix is put out by a handful of students that seems to be dwindling still further; the Daily Gazette may fold due to a lack of committed staff for the fall semester; and The L-Word is run by two people.
As Ian Chang said in the spring 1997 Spike, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the administration because it generally has our best interests at heart. So does our student government, most of the time (with notable exceptions that I need not go into here). However, we all benefit from tough scrutiny and tough criticism of the public institutions and figures that shape all of our lives here at the College, as he argued.
This publication's renewed vigor in creating an independent and critical voice is, in some ways, my attempt to take up Chang's call. Spike can only do so much, much less The Phoenix. If we don't watch out, many of us will get through four years here without ever having really confronted serious issues. Most of us are unwilling to take on such touchy topics. Even if some try, they have to overcome the layers of euphemism under which most issues are buried.
For example, in the Swarthmore community, there is serious resentment toward the administration due to the unceasing increases in tuition each year and financial aid decisions. Many minority and queer students are uncomfortable and fear for their safety. Acting Dean Bob Gross is likely to be hired as Dean of the College despite serious reservations among much of the student body (the effect this may have on the decision is unclear at best). As S.L.A.G. has valiantly tried to document, staff often get a raw deal here (Lena Sze has an article in this issue on this topic). The admission of the class of 2000 caused significant concern from faculty about dropping standards. Our faculty, while exceptional, is not very diverse, especially when compared against our rapidly diversifying student body. Public Safety is ineffective, sometimes (reportedly) dangerously so. Women still are uncomfortable or unsafe on campus.
All of these issues deserve serious attention from the community. But you rarely see coverage of these issues in the student press. I believe that is really unfortunate. We need to really engage each other about the values of this institution and how those reflect (or contradict) existing policy.
The L-Word is here to put it to you straight from a liberal perspective on these issues. I would like to be clear, though, that campus political coverage and opinions are not our only function. Certainly, we see it as fundamental to our mission to inform the student body about national and world politics and take principled stands on these issues. But that is not my concern here. These articles are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Without tough campus coverage, we will be another meaningless liberal paper that repeats the fault of so many liberals on this campus by ignoring issues right in front of its face.
The Editor-in-Chief position that I currently hold will
soon be vacant. I encourage liberals out there to apply to fill my spot.
It's a tough position. I can't guarantee that you won't be criticized. But
it is rewarding to help diversify and build the campus press. And you can
put your own stamp on the paper that we hope to build into a Swarthmore
institution. The community will be better off for it. |
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback